What is a gravitational wave?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

We will be able to produce coordinates to point other telescopes at. Soon we will have a multi-wave picture of the universe; optical, x-ray, infra-red, radio and gravitational!

That's fantastic , so my idea of an image history of the universe is not too ' far fetched '

 

Mike

[Robittybob1]

Mike I have the impression that orbiting binaries are very common but in general the amount of G-Rad being produced is relatively small so their lifetime is extremely long. Even the Hulse Taylor Binary is expected to decay for the next 100,000 years or more.

If they can get the sensors to be more sensitive and find a way to undo the background (which will be a confusion of millions of overlapping G-Rad waves) then they will be able to see a merging event or at least the after effects for it is going to be difficult to tune in with a telescope just in the last 0.3 second final stage.

 

They should be able to take out the waveform that was being produced by the BH merger prior to the final stages. Would this reveal another underneath this?

Just to clarify the lifetime of an already infalling binary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_B1913%2B16#Star_system

With this comparatively large energy loss due to gravitational radiation, the rate of decrease of orbital period is 76.5 microseconds per year, the rate of decrease of semimajor axis is 3.5 meters per year, and the calculated lifetime to final inspiral is 300 million years.[2][8]

 

And they are relatively close together already.

What is the ultimate fate of all this gravitational radiation? If it is energy where does it go?

If we were to look at any 2 masses (microscopic BHs (MBH) weighing 1 kg) coming in from infinity and merging into a single BH is there the same amount of absolute energy and mass released/kg in that merger?

No - the mass in the equation has the relationship being proportional to (m1*m2)*(m1+m2) so 2 larger mass will release proportionately more energy/kg and if the masses are of equal size the energy release is maximum

eg 2 * 7kg MBH merging release more power (3.77 times more power) than a 1kg and a 13 kg MBH, which must imply the resulting MBH are of differing masses after the merger (even though m1 and m2 in both examples add to 14).

Edited February 15, 2016 by Robittybob1

[Robittybob1]

I have just noted that simply bringing the 2 masses together on a direct line via gravitational attraction there will be no gravitational radiation and no subsequent mass loss. It seems that G-rad is only produced when gravity is involved with a decaying orbit.
Can anyone relate this to the rubber sheet analogy with the marble rolling around but ultimately falling. If there was no G-radiation the marble would not fall, but with G-rad the marble falls. It is not possible to demonstrate this as there is always friction on the rubber sheet. You can't get a frictionless marble rolling on a frictionless rubber sheet. This could be done by computer simulation though.

 

PS: "simply bringing the 2 masses together on a direct line via gravitational attraction" on the rubber sheet analogy that is rolling the marble straight down the slope with no rotation.

Mike I have the impression that orbiting binaries are very common but in general the amount of G-Rad being produced is relatively small so their lifetime is extremely long. Even the Hulse Taylor Binary is expected to decay for the next 100,000 years or more.

If they can get the sensors to be more sensitive and find a way to undo the background (which will be a confusion of millions of overlapping G-Rad waves) then they will be able to see a merging event or at least the after effects for it is going to be difficult to tune in with a telescope just in the last 0.3 second final stage.

 

They should be able to take out the waveform that was being produced by the BH merger prior to the final stages. Would this reveal another underneath this?

Just to clarify the lifetime of an already infalling binary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_B1913%2B16#Star_system

And they are relatively close together already.

What is the ultimate fate of all this gravitational radiation? If it is energy where does it go?

If we were to look at any 2 masses (microscopic BHs (MBH) weighing 1 kg) coming in from infinity and merging into a single BH is there the same amount of absolute energy and mass released/kg in that merger?

No - the mass in the equation has the relationship being proportional to (m1*m2)*(m1+m2) so 2 larger mass will release proportionately more energy/kg and if the masses are of equal size the energy release is maximum

eg 2 * 7kg MBH merging release more power (3.77 times more power) than a 1kg and a 13 kg MBH, which must imply the resulting MBH are of differing masses after the merger (even though m1 and m2 in both examples add to 14).

Does anyone see why the two more even masses (7 kg) would lose more G-Rad? I have understood this due to the orbital speed to being higher resulting a greater mismatch between the curvature of spacetime and the strength of gravity needed to maintain the orbit. I must admit I haven't worked out to say it adequately yet. Can anyone help me out?

The paper by Steve Carlip "Does Gravity Travel at the Speed of Light?" goes someway to explain it.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93487-split-from-gravitational-waves-discovered/page-2#entry905834

Edited February 15, 2016 by Robittybob1

[Robittybob1]

I'm surprised by the lack of discussion.

Does anyone think about how long the black holes were orbiting each other before they merged?

 

One reference suggested they were binary stars originally and then became BHs. That is the sort of timescale that would be needed and if all the G-Rad that had been radiated throughout the entire lifetime of those stars then Supernovae (SN) then black holes there would be considerable mass loss far in excess to the 3 solar masses just from the G-Rad without even thinking about the SN events.

 

The timescale of this event is billions of years and not just the last 0.3 seconds.

 

That was one of the concepts I struggled with, was that one star in a binary can go supernova and yet the binary arrangement survives.

OK the supernova ejecta can go off through interstellar space and get involved with other nebula and hence form other stars but what happens to the mass lost to G-rad? Does this have a role in any other phenomena?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I'm surprised by the lack of discussion.

 

?

.

.I am still struggling with the speed of gravitational waves being assumed so easily as 'c'. ( namely the speed of electromagnetic waves , light ,RF. .EM , etc ) .

 

Other than some sweeping statement . " Nothing can exceed the speed of light "

 

O.k. I can see , that the interactions of mass particles , being based on charge , or neutralised charge , being limited to some speed or other . And photons traveling at ' c ' being electro magnetic ' even though massless.

 

But what is the mechanism of Gravitational waves based on , such that it is limited or exactly equal to 'the speed of electro-magnetic waves .?' What is the vehicle of their propagation ?

 

When it is not based on Photon. Principles . Either ? .

 

Has anyone made an accurate measurement of the speed of Gravitational Waves ? I thought this experiment was all about finding if they even existed?

 

 

And if there is a ' rubber sheet ' . What does the rubber sheet represent . ( a gravitation medium ? Or what?) or are there gravitons zooming about like photons ? And how do they function ?

 

Mike

Edited February 15, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Robittybob1]

Good questions Mike. Check this out please Mike >>> What I am wondering about is why we got a wave and not just a series of half waves (humps)? Why would one end of the binary be more like the south pole of a magnet and the other north. Gravity doesn't have a polarity.

It could be the way the G-Rad is detected that converts half waves into sinusoidal waves. I'm just not sure if they got the rotational speeds correct for if I'm right then each half turn will create one full sinusoidal line on the LIDO graph.

 

It would be like attaching a laser to each BH so each time one went past us (closest to us) we would see the light i.e 2 pulses per revolution not just 1 (1 from each of the binary BHs). Did you see if there was a representation between the position of the BH and the graph? I don't remember seeing 2 pulses per revolution of the Binary.

 

How gravitons would work has not been worked out yet AFAIK.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Robittybob1

[Mordred]

Good questions Mike. Check this out please Mike >>> What I am wondering about is why we got a wave and not just a series of half waves (humps)? Why would one end of the binary be more like the south pole of a magnet and the other north. Gravity doesn't have a polarity.

Your right gravity doesn't have a polarity. This site here has probably one of the simpler explanation via math.

 

http://www.tapir.caltech.edu/~teviet/Waves/gwave.html

[Strange]

Good questions Mike. Check this out please Mike >>> What I am wondering about is why we got a wave and not just a series of half waves (humps)? Why would one end of the binary be more like the south pole of a magnet and the other north. Gravity doesn't have a polarity.

 

Consider the analogy of dropping a stone in a pond (or two swans chasing each other in circles) these both generate sinusoidal ripples even though neither stones nor swans have polarity. So this isn't a "north-south" thing, just a result of a periodic motion. [OK, "just" is perhaps an exaggeration!]

Edited February 15, 2016 by Strange

[Robittybob1]

 

Consider the analogy of dropping a stone in a pond (or two swans chasing each other in circles) these both generate sinusoidal ripples even though neither stones nor swans have polarity. So this isn't a "north-south" thing, just a result of a periodic motion. [OK, "just" is perhaps an exaggeration!]

@Strange - That is exactly what I mean. It is more like the two swans situation rather than a stone in a pond.

With the two swans each time one swims past you there would be another positive pressure wave. So if there are two swans there are two positive pressure waves per revolution and did they show that in the animations?

So if they have a frequency coming from the infall that frequency is twice the rotation rate. (I might have said it wrong before but thinking it through there are two waves per revolution for there are two bodies in the merger. PS: it was correct above as well.)

This needs checking for the estimated speed of the BHs would need to be halved otherwise.

Could someone please check this for the speed of the BHs seemed to be extraordinarily high but let's apply some formulas and check it.

Your right gravity doesn't have a polarity. This site here has probably one of the simpler explanation via math.

 

http://www.tapir.caltech.edu/~teviet/Waves/gwave.html

Good to see you. Immediately I notice in the first animation it has just the one wave coming from only one of the two orbiting bodies.

Now that must be wrong surely. The total radiation depends on the combination of the two masses.

I'll have a look further into the article now.

 

I can not fault the rest as my math not good enough.

 

One further question:

The amplitude of the G-Rad wave is as shown based on the radius of the binary orbit. Is that correct? Does that amplitude remain a feature of the radiation no matter how far away it travels from the source?

 

If that was the source of the amplitude of the wave, the wave would have a higher frequency but lower amplitude as the bodies merge.

The amount of G-radiation increases but the amplitude decreases as the bodies merge. On the graphs we see the amplitude increase (and frequency increase) but the amplitude on the graph is more representative of total power output rather than amplitude of the G-Rad wave.

Do you agree with any of that?

There was an article on a site having Q&A http://gizmodo.com/your-questions-about-gravitational-waves-answered-1758269933

(Dr. Amber Stuver of the LIGO Livingston Observatory in Louisiana is here today with some answers.) ....

 

Stuver: Gravitational waves are expected to travel at the speed of light. This is the speed that is implied by general relativity. However, experiments like LIGO will get to test this. It is possible that they could travel slower but very near the speed of light. If that is the case, then the theoretical particle associated with gravity (and what gravitational waves are made up of) called the graviton would have a mass. Since gravity acts between masses, this would add complications into the theory. The complications don’t make it impossible, just improbable. This is a great example of the use of Occam’s razor: the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

I found it interesting that if gravity was mediated by gravitons and gravitons were in the radiation, this she admits would complicate the analysis. I expect there is more to learn regarding this.

I don't feel so bad now as the video "LIGO Detects Gravitational Waves" produced by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) shows the G-Rad coming from the separate BHs and combining in space thereafter. At 3:47 in this video.

this is clearly shown.

A wonderful video, and gives honour to those who made it possible.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Robittybob1

[Robittybob1]

I have been considering this amplitude issue all afternoon. I have reasoned that the amplitude does not decrease with distance just the strength of the signal should diminish at the inverse square rate.

 

Is there any way to resolve this? Like the G-Rad coming from the Earth Sun has an amplitude and wavelength that relates to the Earth -Sun distance and the period related to the orbital period, it is very very weak to begin with and there is no logical reason to change any parameter.

Can waves behave like this? Beams of particles could. So will this allow us to tell whether the G-Rad is energy (EM??) or gravitons (particles)?

The number of gravitons per m^2/sec at any point of space will decline with distance and with distance they will be more parallel whereas close in they will moving in all manner of directions (the animation above really demonstrates that).

 

Anyone considering this?

[Strange]

Could someone please check this for the speed of the BHs seemed to be extraordinarily high but let's apply some formulas and check it.

 

To check this, you would have to run simulations using the complex mathematics describing the situation. There is no simple equation that is going to give you the answer. But you can find lots of examples and animations of these simulations online. These are how the specifics off these gravitational waves were identified.

 

Note that, in reality, the waves generated by black holes spiralling in is MUCH more complex than ripples in a pond.

 

 

I found it interesting that if gravity was mediated by gravitons and gravitons were in the radiation, this she admits would complicate the analysis. I expect there is more to learn regarding this.

 

She is saying that if gravitons had mass it would make things more complex. There is, currently, no reason to think they do have mass.

[Robittybob1]

This is how I read it: If the G-radiation travels at the speed of light then the graviton has no mass. If the G-radiation travels at less than the speed of light then the graviton has some mass. Why would you say it has no mass? What is G-Rad if it isn't particles?

in that MIT animation the ripples move out like a ripple on a pond. Is G-Rad a planar type problem (radiation emanates in the plane of the orbit only)?

[Strange]

I have been considering this amplitude issue all afternoon. I have reasoned that the amplitude does not decrease with distance just the strength of the signal should diminish at the inverse square rate.

 

It doesn't decrease but does decrease? Huh?

 

I can't find it now, but I read an article that explained in simple terms how the different components of the waveform fall of at different rates until you are left with a signal that decreases linearly with distance.

This is how I read it: If the G-radiation travels at the speed of light then the graviton has no mass. If the G-radiation travels at less than the speed of light then the graviton has some mass. Why would you say it has no mass?

 

You have already had explanations why gravitational waves are thought to travel at the speed of light. That is why the (hypothetical) graviton would have no mass.

 

in that MIT animation the ripples move out like a ripple on a pond. Is G-Rad a planar type problem (radiation emanates in the plane of the orbit only)?

 

No, that is a simple 2D visualization of something happening in 4D.

 

What it doesn't show you, for example, is that the gravitational waves causes opposite stretching and squishing effects in the x and y direction (and no effect in the z direction - the direction of travel).

 

The waves are not completely symmetrical close to the black holes, but once you get a reasonable distance away, it becomes spherically symmetrical.

[Robittybob1]

 

It doesn't decrease but does decrease? Huh?

 

I can't find it now, but I read an article that explained in simple terms how the different components of the waveform fall of at different rates until you are left with a signal that decreases linearly with distance.

 

You have already had explanations why gravitational waves are thought to travel at the speed of light. That is why the (hypothetical) graviton would have no mass.

 

 

No, that is a simple 2D visualization of something happening in 4D.

 

What it doesn't show you, for example, is that the gravitational waves causes opposite stretching and squishing effects in the x and y direction (and no effect in the z direction - the direction of travel).

 

The waves are not completely symmetrical close to the black holes, but once you get a reasonable distance away, it becomes spherically symmetrical.

Cheers. OK the LIGO detector was an "L" shaped building, and each limb was in one dimension x or y but there was no tower which would be the z dimension. Are you imagining the wave traveled from space straight down towards America, is that what you mean? I've never thought of it like that. I thought it was more or less coming in at a low angle rather than from above. They said it was in the southern hemisphere and USA is in the northern so it didn't sound like it was from above.

I'll have to consider what you say.

"I can't find it now, but I read an article that explained in simple terms how the different components of the waveform fall of at different rates until you are left with a signal that decreases linearly with distance."

 

If you find that let me know please.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Robittybob1

[Strange]

Cheers. OK the LIGO detector was an "L" shaped building, and each limb was in one dimension x or y but there was no tower which would be the z dimension. Are you imagining the wave traveled from space straight down towards America, is that what you mean?

 

No, I don't mean that. I was talking about the nature of gravitational waves in general, nothing specifically to do with the LIGO detector. (But the fact that the arms will be affected differently, however they are oriented with respect to the waves is an important part of the detection mechanism.)

 

This presentation has some good diagrams showing how gravitational waves affect the space they are travelling through.

https://www.aapt.org/doorway/tgrutalks/Saulson/SaulsonTalk-Teaching%20gravitational%20waves.pdf

[Robittybob1]

That was rather educational. I'll go back to that power point for sure. Thanks.

[Robittybob1]

What I put in a post to Imatfaal came after much study on the connection between orbital energy and kinetic energy, for it really bugged me that slowing something down actually made it speed up but in a different orbit.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93442-gravitational-waves-discovery-expected/page-3#entry906394

 

Normally to lose orbital energy you need drag or reverse thrust. Gravitational energy is equivalent to that drag, so the orbital energy is converted to G-Rad and kinetic energy, whereas in normal orbital decay orbital energy is converted to drag (heat energy) and kinetic energy. You lose that orbital energy which has a component of gravitational potential energy in it, it is losing that potential energy factor that is the source of the heat and kinetic and in this case G-radiation. There is the factor of 2 in those equations.

Kinetic energy (KE) is positive. The BHs both speed up as the decay occurs.

The Potential Energy (PE) becomes more negative as both BHs get closer to each other.

Each BH in orbit loses orbital energy (OE)

Let's see if those equations can be written in LaTex.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Robittybob1

[Robittybob1]

Explain G-rad as a drag? "Aberration and the Speed of Gravity" by S Carlip

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909087.pdf

The word drag is not in that paper, where did I see it?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_decay

 

In orbital mechanics, decay is a process that leads to gradual decrease of the distance between two orbiting bodies at their closest approach (the periapsis) over many orbital periods. These orbiting bodies can be a planet and its satellite, a star and any object orbiting it, or components of any binary system. The orbital decay can be caused by a multitude of mechanical, gravitational, and electromagnetic effects. For bodies in a low Earth orbit, the most significant effect is the atmospheric drag.

This study puts magnetic braking and G-Rad under the same heading.

"Angular Momentum Loss by Magnetic Braking and
Gravitational Radiation in Relativistic Binary Stars"

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0811.0455v1.pdf

If the same math cover these two could G-Rad be thought of as gravitational braking? That makes you think. How could the delay in the establishing the curvature of spacetime act as a gravitational brake? Is it like the object running up against the wall of the analogous rubber sheet?

Drag is like having a force against the direction of motion. Would it be something like the Poynting Robertson effect that caused a drag.

Now for the following thought experiment I will accept Strange's idea that gravitons are massless (particles/waves???), massless anyway. That means an object can produce any number of gravitons for they will not take energy to form (They could be like the ticking clock of matter any number of ticks can be generated. but only at a certain rate).

 

Now just a thought experiment using gravitons. If the graviton acts orthogonal to the motion the mass is bent through a small angle (equal to the curvature of spacetime at that point and like a type of right hand rule but different pointing rules) but if the graviton is "late" there could be a slight rear facing force plus the bending force (like running into the wall of curved spacetime).

Somehow that idea of "late" could be related to gravitational time dilation (Larger or more massive bodies being more sensitive to the time delay because they have more time dilation in the space they are in).

 

@Mordred can you see some sort of extension to the thought experiment? What is the next step?

Edited February 17, 2016 by Robittybob1

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Surely :-

 

This is all coming back to the difference of 'things ' in nature . ( Nature of Things . De rerum natura. Lucretius )

 

Firstly . Things that have Mass that are subject to a certain type of laws , and a whole range of values of moving criteria. Which might well be subject to the 'medium' they move in.

 

Secondly . Things that are Effects like quantum's of energy, packets of energy that move at the fixed speed of light / EM . ( namely 'c' ) . Which themselves are 'medium less '.

 

These are described in the standard model as distinct different entities.

 

Mike

Edited February 18, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Robittybob1]

Surely :-

 

This is all coming back to the difference of 'things ' in nature .

 

Firstly . Things that have Mass that are subject to a certain type of laws , and a whole range of values of moving criteria. Which might well be subject to the 'medium' they move in.

 

Secondly . Things that are Effects like quantum's of energy, packets of energy that move at the fixed speed of light / EM . ( namely 'c' ) . Which themselves are 'medium less '.

 

These are described in the standard model as distinct different entities.

 

Mike

Yes but how do you make mass curve through space (orbit) OK we call it gravity, but is it due to curved spacetime or mass/energy curving in spacetime? If gravity is mediated by these massless theoretical gravitons do the gravitons curve spacetime or interact with matter and make it curve as if it was rolling on a curved rubber sheet?

So this how I would expect to see it if it ever becomes proven. Quantum gravity would be quantum like in nature, with packets (gravitons) so that would mean matter took little steps to make a curve rather than a continuous curvature. Does curved spacetime have a grainy surface (like pixels) or is it absolutely smooth?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Yes but how do you make mass curve through space (orbit) OK we call it gravity, but is it due to curved spacetime or mass/energy curving in spacetime? If gravity is mediated by these massless theoretical gravitons do the gravitons curve spacetime or interact with matter and make it curve as if it was rolling on a curved rubber sheet?

So this how I would expect to see it if it ever becomes proven. Quantum gravity would be quantum like in nature, with packets (gravitons) so that would mean matter took little steps to make a curve rather than a continuous curvature. Does curved spacetime have a grainy surface (like pixels) or is it absolutely smooth?

Well! I am not the expert , I am just a mortal being trying to get to grips with what's surrounding me !

 

But, as I perceive it ' mass is like the billiard Stick , that I have hold of . With a great deal of effort I give it a thrust and it transfers the thrust to the far end . At the other end is another mass ball that receives this thrust as an effect transferred by the stick . And pops into a pocket or goes on a further journey. So the cumbersome stick does not go anywhere . It just lumbers along with effort, momentum , mass , medium , and all the attributes and restrictions of mechanics . Whereas the effect , travels almost instantaneously , at the speed of light to the far end of my game .

 

These words that everything is particles , I find , confuses me . It helps me if I think in terms of ' things of mass' and ' effects travelling at the speed of light or maybe at different speeds if the medium so effects '

 

But this is just a personal head model to help my understanding of ' the Nature of Things .. De rerum natura. Lucretius ' . Like at sea , the waves look as if they are travelling across the sea. The water ( mass) is going no where , just up and down . The effect ( wave ) is travelling across the sea as a packet of energy , finally breaking on some distant shore . And depositing its energy into/onto , distant mass ( a swimmer, or a sea wall, or a beach ) .

 

Mike

Edited February 18, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Robittybob1]

Well! I am not the expert , I am just a mortal being trying to get to grips with what's surrounding me !

 

But, as I perceive it ' mass is like the billiard Stick , that I have hold of . With a great deal of effort I give it a thrust and it transfers the thrust to the far end . At the other end is another mass ball that receives this thrust as an effect transferred by the stick . And pops into a pocket or goes on a further journey. So the cumbersome stick does not go anywhere . It just lumbers along with effort, momentum , mass , medium , and all the attributes and restrictions of mechanics . Whereas the effect , travels almost instantaneously , at the speed of light to the far end of my game .

 

These words that everything is particles , I find , confuses me . It helps me if I think in terms of ' things of mass' and ' effects travelling at the speed of light or maybe at different speeds if the medium so effects '

 

But this is just a personal head model to help my understanding of ' the Nature of Things .. De rerum natura. Lucretius ' . Like at sea , the waves look as if they are travelling across the sea. The water ( mass) is going no where , just up and down . The effect ( wave ) is travelling across the sea as a packet of energy , finally breaking on some distant shore . And depositing its energy into/onto , distant mass ( a swimmer, or a sea wall, or a beach ) .

 

Mike

Makes me feel like having a holiday, sea, waves, beaches and playing pool. Cheers

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Makes me feel like having a holiday, sea, waves, beaches and playing pool. Cheers

I think ' the sea ' is a good model , in its own right. Like most models , it applies in an aspect or two or more , but not in all respects.

But , like skimming a curved , flat , circular stone , over the surface of water , enables one to get across the surface water far further than you could actually throw the stone :- so

 

Your curvature of space , ;- and thus the trajectory of the stone is in fact across a slightly curved surface, caused by the gravitational effect of the whole earth on the water surface.

 

I know there are a lot of mixed metaphors here , however it's good for possible explanations from diverse directions . After all we are talking of gravitational waves across 1.3 billion years worth of travel !

 

Mike

Edited February 18, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Robittybob1]

That's good to picture that image of the skimming stone making its way around the curved surface. I'm not sure if I can really reply to it as such. It seems more like a memory rather than something we can use at the moment to discover what a gravitational wave is.

Thanks Mike.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.quote

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Surely :-

 

This is all coming back to the difference of 'things ' in nature . ( Nature of Things . De rerum natura. Lucretius )

 

Firstly . Things that have Mass that are subject to a certain type of laws , and a whole range of values of moving criteria. Which might well be subject to the 'medium' they move in.

 

Secondly . Things that are Effects like quantum's of energy, forces, packets of energy , that move at the fixed speed of light / EM . ( namely 'c' ) . Which themselves are 'medium less '.

 

These are described in the standard model as distinct different entities. Are they not ?

 

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos, Yesterday, 07:26 AM. ,"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

unquote

 

Two different atomic entities . Different types

 

. ~~~~~~~. BOSONS . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ FERMIONS ~~~~~~~~~

 

1 . Boson .

 

Link :- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson .

.

2 . Fermion .

 

. Link :- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermion

 

Simple comparison of two sorts of ' entities ' ( spin and characteristic )

 

. Link :- http://www.particleadventure.org/fermibos.html

 

Fundamental difference in Fermions and Bosons ( division of entities in the standard model )

 

. Link :- https://www.theguardian.com/science/life-and-physics/2011/aug/13/1

 

Mike

Edited February 19, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos